Big#D wrote:i'm guessing that even when the west runs out of asian places to make things, they'll start looking towards africa. at least until someone else's economy tanks and the cost of living plummets and the cycle can start again.

The first one refutes the idea that we'll all retire and let the robots do our work, which isn't exactly the point the video was making.

The second is making the point that our laws are written to be enforced by people. There's nothing stopping us from writing software that exercises the same judgements as a human would (or changing the law to reflect the laws that are actually enforced). Ticket people exceeding the speed limit by a certain amount. It also describes instances where our early law enforcement automation is crappy. That's to be expected. It's early. If those systems don't get better with time then they'll be unique in human history.

The third makes a number of points, but they're mostly already countered in the video. Replacing the bottom third of jobs with robots may just result in different jobs for people. But the pace of change to reach that point has been slow. If it speeds up, and we reach the point where many more of the jobs we do can be done better and cheaper by robot then what will all the people do?

I expect there would be a bit of a backlash in some places against robots or automated services. ATM? No thanks, I'll use a real teller. Robot McDonalds? No thanks, I'll eat at the Burger King that employs local teens.

But I doubt that would have a huge impact in the end. The world could end up very stratified into people whose jobs have not yet been automated, and everyone else. I expect socialism would start looking a lot more attractive. The masses may really buy into the idea that the natural wealth of a country should first serve to provide a decent standard of living, and then the remainder should go to reward those who generate wealth.

The first one refutes the idea that we'll all retire and let the robots do our work, which isn't exactly the point the video was making.

The second is making the point that our laws are written to be enforced by people. There's nothing stopping us from writing software that exercises the same judgements as a human would (or changing the law to reflect the laws that are actually enforced). Ticket people exceeding the speed limit by a certain amount. It also describes instances where our early law enforcement automation is crappy. That's to be expected. It's early. If those systems don't get better with time then they'll be unique in human history.

The third makes a number of points, but they're mostly already countered in the video. Replacing the bottom third of jobs with robots may just result in different jobs for people. But the pace of change to reach that point has been slow. If it speeds up, and we reach the point where many more of the jobs we do can be done better and cheaper by robot then what will all the people do?

I expect there would be a bit of a backlash in some places against robots or automated services. ATM? No thanks, I'll use a real teller. Robot McDonalds? No thanks, I'll eat at the Burger King that employs local teens.

But I doubt that would have a huge impact in the end. The world could end up very stratified into people whose jobs have not yet been automated, and everyone else. I expect socialism would start looking a lot more attractive. The masses may really buy into the idea that the natural wealth of a country should first serve to provide a decent standard of living, and then the remainder should go to reward those who generate wealth.

A couple of points on the laws things. One, with speeding as the example, there are jurisdictions where the speed limit is actually the speed limit. People know it, get ticketed above it, and just generally obey it. It was strange for me going West and seeing everyone driving within 5 km/h of the limit, but it seemed to work just fine for them. Two, when the robots get good enough to police that sort of stuff we'll have moved beyond the need to police it anyway. You don't need to enforce the speed limit when cars drive themselves. Ditto for pretty much every other traffic offense, potentially including drunk driving too.

The only way I think socialism will be appealing again is if we reach a point as a society where automation produces most everything and we've figured out an effectively limitless source of energy. In other words, when we can support a high standard of living for everyone without the need for most people to put in a day's work. I wouldn't hold your breath.

Craig wrote:The only way I think socialism will be appealing again is if we reach a point as a society where automation produces most everything and we've figured out an effectively limitless source of energy. In other words, when we can support a high standard of living for everyone without the need for most people to put in a day's work. I wouldn't hold your breath.

when can have socialism, as long as we don't use the word socialism. We can all agree that actions which could theoretically fall within the broad definition are the way to go, but as soon as we use the word we're done.

dempsey_k wrote:I don't think socialism will ever appear attractive on a broad scale. There's nothing inherent in these discussions that say it's necessary for *government control of capital* to solve anything. Socialism doesn't solve that, it's a completely orthogonal problem and socialism is meant as a means to create a superior mode of production to capitalism based on a specific reading of human nature. I and most people with their heads screwed on right would tell you that was a terrible misreading of human nature and reintroducing it won't solve anything put forth by the vid. I think what you mean by "socialism" isn't necessary socialism, but rather expansion of the safety net. And that's where we come back to the basic income, which isn't socialism any more than Obamacare is. Reintroducing socialism to address these problems is almost the exact goof that Bastiat pointed out 150yrs ago: we should blot out the sun as a boon to the candlemakers union.

Yah. Bad use of the term by me. I'm not talking about strict socialism, but merely a system that places first priority on the production of goods and services to meet the need for all to have a reasonable standard of living.

That's an idea that I wouldn't support in other circumstances. Basic needs? Yes. Reasonable standard of living? That's too rich. Get a fucking job. But if there are so few jobs to be had then something's got to give.

I guess another solution would be to restrict work hours. Keep reducing it to match the labour supply to the demand. EDIT: Probably better to just raise the taxes (employee and employer) on hours worked above a certain amount. Some people just love work.